1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
TiliK225 [7]
3 years ago
7

What is the difference between a solicitor, a barrister and a lawyer?

Law
2 answers:
Nat2105 [25]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

The term 'lawyer' is an umbrella term for both solicitors and barristers. Solicitors provide general legal advice on a variety of issues. Barristers are specialists in certain legal fields that solicitors can instruct on behalf of their client to appear in court.

Dafna1 [17]3 years ago
5 0
The term lawyer is an umbrella term for both solicitors and barristers. Solicitors provide general legal advice on a variety of issues. Barristers are specialists in certain legal fields that solicitors can instruct on behalf of their client to appear in court
You might be interested in
Use your understanding of the policy process to put these steps in order.
adelina 88 [10]

Answer:

1. 2) Fishermen report low catch of species for eating.

Fishermen will first report that they were unable to catch much fish.

2. 3) Public hearings are held to determine all the possible solutions.

There will then be a public hearing where the possible reasons and solutions to the fish problem are discussed.

3. 4)Marine scientists count fish population.

As part of the solution, marine scientists will count the populations of fish in the water.

4. 5)The Department of Fish and Game evaluates the repopulation of fisheries.​

Based on this count, the Department of Fish and Game will research to find out how they can repopulate the water bodies.

5. Department of Fish and Game sets limits for fishermen.

As a result of this research, the Department will come up with a limit on the amount of fish that can be caught in a particular period to enable to fish population to rise to a certain level again.

4 0
3 years ago
Give an example of one or two Supreme Court cases (including dates and titles of the court cases) and whether you believe the de
Arte-miy333 [17]

Explanation:

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

3 0
3 years ago
Porfa, no entiendo como se hace
kkurt [141]

Answer:

Mira la respuesta a continuación

Explanation:

En una democracia, cada individuo tiene derechos a la libertad que van desde el habla, el movimiento, la asociación, la vida, etc. Sin embargo, las leyes hechas por las autoridades de un estado son vinculantes para todos los ciudadanos de ese estado. La autonomía no debe confundirse con rebelión e insubordinación. Ningún individuo está por encima de la ley y no hay libertad para la desobediencia de las leyes hechas por la autoridad de un estado.

Además, no hay licencia para que la autoridad infrinja los derechos de las personas. Es por eso que existe el derecho a la libertad de audiencia imparcial. Los ciudadanos pueden demandar a la autoridad si presentan leyes que están en contra de las personas. Las personas, en este caso, pueden ejercer sus derechos.

Por lo tanto, es cierto que en una sociedad que funciona democráticamente, cualquier oposición planteada por el autor puede ser superada porque tanto el individuo como la autoridad tienen derecho a una audiencia imparcial en el tribunal de justicia.

5 0
3 years ago
Mapp v. Ohio Case: Do you agree with the Court’s decision in the Mapp case? Give reasons for your answer.
Aleksandr-060686 [28]

Answer:

Yes

Explanation:

What the officers did was unconstitutional and violated the 4th amendment.  Weeks v. United States established the Exclusionary Rule in 1914. At the time the exclusionary rule was only applied for federal courts instead of all courts. In 1949, Wolf v. Colorado, the High Court ruled that the Exclusionary Rule did not apply to the State but the Fourth Amendment did. In 1961, Mapp v. Ohio, the High Court ruled that the exclusionary rule applies to the state level as well as the federal. Justice Clark said this perfectly, "Thus the State, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, serves to encourage disobedience to the Federal Constitution which it is bound to uphold....... Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."

8 0
2 years ago
What did people who supported the law of banning texting while driving
slava [35]

Answer:

so people can not get hurt

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Clients who feel that they have suffered damages as a result of a professional's breach of his or her duty of care can bring a n
    14·1 answer
  • Describe 3 amendments that increased suffrage in the U.S.
    6·2 answers
  • What part of English government do you think
    13·1 answer
  • In the One Leg Stand Test, the suspect is asked to ...
    12·1 answer
  • In what 3 instances is the federal government always supreme to the States?
    15·1 answer
  • 'Victimhood is not an objective assessment of harm
    15·1 answer
  • A non-custodial interrogation is not an option after the individual has
    6·1 answer
  • What is a public opinion poll
    8·2 answers
  • The name of the law that enforced prohibition was known as
    6·1 answer
  • In the United States, a winning defendant may recover legal fees from the losing party if they prove ____________.
    12·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!